A federal judge has shot down a claim by the son of former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani that Duke University breached a contract when it kicked him off the golf team.

Andrew Giuliani claimed in a July 2008 lawsuit that in cutting him from the team, Duke reneged on a contract that promised him golf team membership and a lifetime of access to Duke's "state-of-the-art" golf facilities.

U.S. District Court Judge William Osteen, Jr. wasn't buying it, writing that statements made by golf coaches during the recruiting process guaranteed Giuliani nothing more than a chance to compete for a spot on the team.

"The statement does not promise unconditional and unlimited opportunities to be on the golf team," Osteen wrote in dismissing Giuliani's claims.

“We are gratified the Court agreed that our coaches have the authority to dismiss a student-athlete from an intercollegiate sports team in circumstances such as those present in this case," said Michael Schoenfeld, a Duke spokesman.

DURHAM –
A federal judge has dismissed Andrew Giuliani’s lawsuit against Duke
University, ruling that there was no contract between the two that
entitled Giuliani to a place on the school’s golf team.

Issued
Tuesday, U.S. District Court Judge William Osteen Jr.’s ruling lined up
with the advice of a federal magistrate and terminated the
breach-of-contract claim Giuliani filed in the summer of 2008 after
being kicked off the team.

Osteen held that statements made to
Giuliani by a former Duke golf coach, the late Rod Myers, were “at best,
ambiguous” and didn’t establish a meeting of the minds between Duke and
the son of former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani.

Moreover,
Andrew Giuliani’s claim that Duke breached the terms of its student
handbook and other policy documents didn’t suffice because the two sides
never signed a formal contract binding the university to follow them,
Osteen said.

Even if they had, the school’s policies left the
door open for each of its athletic teams to establish its own rules, the
judge said in a footnote to his 25-page opinion.

Duke officials
have alleged in court documents that Giuliani’s dismissal from the golf
team in early 2008 followed a series of disciplinary breaches by the
youth, including a fight with a teammate.

University
administrators welcomed the ruling.

“We are gratified the court
agreed that our coaches have the authority to dismiss a student-athlete
from an intercollegiate sports team in circumstances such as those
present in this case,” said Michael Schoenfeld, Duke vice president for
public affairs and government relations.

Giuliani’s lawyer,
Durham attorney Bob Ekstrand, couldn’t be reached immediately for
comment. A secretary in his office took a message and said he was
meeting with a client.

From what I recall he was not a very good golfer and he had a short temper. He probably thought duke had messed with the wrong family. I believe I remember that the parties to the Lacrosse civil suits had filed briefs supporting this lawsuit. In retrospect, probably not the best move.

RedMountain wrote: From what I recall he was not a very good golfer and he had a short temper. He probably thought duke had messed with the wrong family. I believe I remember that the parties to the Lacrosse civil suits had filed briefs supporting this lawsuit. In retrospect, probably not the best move.

I wonder why there is no movement on the Duke three's civil suit. I believe their civil suits were filed before this one. Shouldn't those suits been thrown out first?

RedMountain wrote: From what I recall he was not a very good golfer and he had a short temper. He probably thought duke had messed with the wrong family. I believe I remember that the parties to the Lacrosse civil suits had filed briefs supporting this lawsuit. In retrospect, probably not the best move.

I wonder why there is no movement on the Duke three's civil suit. I believe their civil suits were filed before this one. Shouldn't those suits been thrown out first?

Yes, that is what should have happened. The lacrosse players various conspiracy theories will probably have to wait to be thrown out until after Pressler's suit is laughed out of the courtroom. When that happens the players will probably offer another settlement, and much lower than the reported initial demand of 30 million, most likely.

RedMountain wrote:
...after Pressler's suit is laughed out of the courtroom.

Duke's settlement with Pressler was announced today.

I doubt that Duke wanted Burness to have to testify under oath.

All those drooling LieStoppers must be disappointed. They dreamed of Burness and Brodhead getting the naked lightbuld treatment. Why did Pressler settle? Didn't he want the truth to come out? Oh yeah, it's not about the truth - it's about the .

Why did Duke want to settle? The judge had just ordered the start of discovery.

That was some apology! Oh, the groveling! LOL!

Terms of the deal were undisclosed, but Duke's advisory included a
statement from Burness' successor, Vice President for Public Affairs and
Government Relations Michael Schoenfeld.

It read, in full:
"Coach Michael Pressler is an excellent coach. He did a great job
building the Duke men's lacrosse program, while maintaining a 100
percent graduation rate in his 16 years. Duke University regrets any
adverse consequences that the Newsday or (Associated Press) article(s)
had on Coach Pressler and his family."

"Duke wishes nothing but
the best for Coach Pressler in his future endeavors, especially at
Bryant University and as he leads Team USA in the world lacrosse
championships."

Schoenfeld added that the university "will have
no additional comment on this matter."

RedMountain wrote:
I doubt it was Duke that pushed this settlement offer across the table, Yank.

Duke was facing a court-ordered depo of Burness within the next 2 weeks, Red.

In one way this case might be considered a 'victory' for Duke - they avoided discovery by using OPM to cover their asses.

You seem to have a convoluted view of things legal, borne, no doubt, of your inexperience with the legal negotiating process. Why else would you think that plaintiffs settle because they think that the award in court might be higher than a settlement?

You know you are a liberal if you want to abort babies and coddle terrorists.

inmyhumbleopinion wrote:That was some apology! Oh, the groveling! LOL!

Terms of the deal were undisclosed, but Duke's advisory included a statement from Burness' successor, Vice President for Public Affairs and Government Relations Michael Schoenfeld.

It read, in full: "Coach Michael Pressler is an excellent coach. He did a great job building the Duke men's lacrosse program, while maintaining a 100 percent graduation rate in his 16 years. Duke University regrets any adverse consequences that the Newsday or (Associated Press) article(s) had on Coach Pressler and his family."

"Duke wishes nothing but the best for Coach Pressler in his future endeavors, especially at Bryant University and as he leads Team USA in the world lacrosse championships."

Schoenfeld added that the university "will have no additional comment on this matter."

I actually think it is a pretty good apology.

Do most schools with lacrosse teams have 100% graduation rates for their players. That is very impressive when you compare it to basketball and football. Granted, there aren't a lot of professional opportunities for lacrosse players.

RedMountain wrote:
I doubt it was Duke that pushed this settlement offer across the table, Yank.

Duke was facing a court-ordered depo of Burness within the next 2 weeks, Red.

In one way this case might be considered a 'victory' for Duke - they avoided discovery by using OPM to cover their asses.

You seem to have a convoluted view of things legal, borne, no doubt, of your inexperience with the legal negotiating process. Why else would you think that plaintiffs settle because they think that the award in court might be higher than a settlement?

In one way this case might be considered a
'victory' for Duke - they avoided discovery by using OPM to cover their
asses.Exactly. And who let them do it? Pressler.

He should have forced them to fire him. It wasn't about the truth for him either - just like for Duke, it was about appearances.

He needed to part amicably in order to continue to coach at a top school. He loves coaching and he has a family to support. I don't blame him, but let's call it like it is.

inmyhumbleopinion wrote:He should have forced them [Duke] to fire him.

That's what happened, Duke fired him. Duke claimed he 'resigned', but afaik Pressler never said that. Everyone with a lick of sense (that excludes you) knew that he was fired.

Pressler should have had Duke admit that in the apology, but I'm sure that Duke was loath to revise thier previous false claims in that regard.

Like I said - he should have forced them to fire him.

From It's Not About The Truth

"They basically gave me no choice," Pressler said. "Either I had to take a less than fair, unsatisfactory settlement or get fired with cause. My only other option was to accept an 'interim suspension' and wait until a report on my program was done by a committee of the president's choosing. I had no option. At that time, I said to myself, 'If I resign, I get severance of some kind. If I roll the dice and take the suspension until the end of June, they rule that I am at fault for some reason, they fire me in June and I get nothing.' With a wife and children, I couldn't risk being fired with cause and having no severance and benefits.

"But maybe the part of this that bothers me the most is that after sixteen years building a program for Duke, sixteen very loyal years, I was being given an hour and a half to decide my future."